What's amazing is...

the number of lurkers who show up begging Mike C. for assistance. Why is it
that none of these so-called lurkers could not have asked their most
pressing questions before Mike C's umpteenth return? I mean, if these folks
have lurked for so long, they know who they don't want responses from and
who might be helpful to them. It's a simple matter of blocking out the
people that you don't want to read and reading those whose posts mean
something to them.

I know, kill-files are for pussies. But I are one; so, I use my filtering
system for my benefit and no one else's. I couldn't care two hoots in hell
about what anyone thinks about the use of kill-files. I find that I am
easily exasperated by some folks, so it's best if I don't see them.
Blocking devises make it easy for me.

One can basically have the NG of their choosing, by employing filters. So
the lurkers argument that they don't post because they don't want to get
attacked is bull****! Anyone, including all of these new found lurkers, get
out of this NG what they are willing to put into it. No more, no less.

Also, why are these folks lurking here, when they could be participating in
one of those sterile web-forums? I know I don't hang out at the web-forums
just waiting for a chance to jump in and tell them how unsatisfying their
discussions are, so why do we have these folks who are just hanging around
with nothing to say? It's really kind of strange.

If it truly is the case that no one here knows **** from shinola about fly
fishing, except Mike C., why haven't Mike C. and his cadre of followers
simply set up house over at alt.flyfishing? Really, it's there for the
taking. No one seems to be using it, except for the occasional post from
T-Bone. I'm sure that alt.flyfishing would be tickled to death to receive
some attention. Who knows, alt.flyfishing could become the premier fly
fishing discussion medium on the internet, if Mike C. and his posse would
just utilize it.

Op

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:44:05 -0400, "Opus" wrote:

the number of lurkers who show up begging Mike C. for assistance. Why is it
that none of these so-called lurkers could not have asked their most
pressing questions before Mike C's umpteenth return? I mean, if these folks
have lurked for so long, they know who they don't want responses from and
who might be helpful to them. It's a simple matter of blocking out the
people that you don't want to read and reading those whose posts mean
something to them.

I know, kill-files are for pussies. But I are one; so, I use my filtering
system for my benefit and no one else's. I couldn't care two hoots in hell
about what anyone thinks about the use of kill-files. I find that I am
easily exasperated by some folks, so it's best if I don't see them.
Blocking devises make it easy for me.

One can basically have the NG of their choosing, by employing filters. So
the lurkers argument that they don't post because they don't want to get
attacked is bull****! Anyone, including all of these new found lurkers, get
out of this NG what they are willing to put into it. No more, no less.

Also, why are these folks lurking here, when they could be participating in
one of those sterile web-forums? I know I don't hang out at the web-forums
just waiting for a chance to jump in and tell them how unsatisfying their
discussions are, so why do we have these folks who are just hanging around
with nothing to say? It's really kind of strange.

If it truly is the case that no one here knows **** from shinola about fly
fishing, except Mike C., why haven't Mike C. and his cadre of followers
simply set up house over at alt.flyfishing? Really, it's there for the
taking. No one seems to be using it, except for the occasional post from
T-Bone. I'm sure that alt.flyfishing would be tickled to death to receive
some attention. Who knows, alt.flyfishing could become the premier fly
fishing discussion medium on the internet, if Mike C. and his posse would
just utilize it.

Op

Would that be a "Posse of One"? Aside from a sock or two, I'm not sure there
are enough members of the "posse" to play a game of Killer Hearts, never mind
Bridge...

/daytripper (is there anything more useless than a pure lurker? ;-)

bla bla snip snip
opus is a fly faggot...................................

anonymous wrote in message ...
bla bla snip snip opus is a fly faggot...................................


as I stated to your juvenile post on ROFFT, nice to
see mommy let you use the computer. Now, run along.
Tom

"Opus" wrote in message
...
the number of lurkers who show up begging Mike C. for assistance. Why is
it that none of these so-called lurkers could not have asked their most
pressing questions before Mike C's umpteenth return? I mean, if these
folks have lurked for so long, they know who they don't want responses
from and who might be helpful to them. It's a simple matter of blocking
out the people that you don't want to read and reading those whose posts
mean something to them.

I know, kill-files are for pussies. But I are one; so, I use my filtering
system for my benefit and no one else's. I couldn't care two hoots in
hell about what anyone thinks about the use of kill-files. I find that I
am easily exasperated by some folks, so it's best if I don't see them.
Blocking devises make it easy for me.

One can basically have the NG of their choosing, by employing filters. So
the lurkers argument that they don't post because they don't want to get
attacked is bull****! Anyone, including all of these new found lurkers,
get out of this NG what they are willing to put into it. No more, no
less.

Also, why are these folks lurking here, when they could be participating
in one of those sterile web-forums? I know I don't hang out at the
web-forums just waiting for a chance to jump in and tell them how
unsatisfying their discussions are, so why do we have these folks who are
just hanging around with nothing to say? It's really kind of strange.

If it truly is the case that no one here knows **** from shinola about fly
fishing, except Mike C., why haven't Mike C. and his cadre of followers
simply set up house over at alt.flyfishing? Really, it's there for the
taking. No one seems to be using it, except for the occasional post from
T-Bone. I'm sure that alt.flyfishing would be tickled to death to receive
some attention. Who knows, alt.flyfishing could become the premier fly
fishing discussion medium on the internet, if Mike C. and his posse would
just utilize it.

Op

As a self confessed lurker, I take the view that I will only contribute when
I have someting useful to say - unlike the "usual suspects". I suspect that
they simply like the sound of their own voice (or the on-line equivalent).

Also, if you look back through this group, you will see many occasions where
newbies, or others, have asked sensible questions, only to be derided or
insulted, again, by the "usual suspects".

I do contribute to other forums where I know that constructive information
is accepted, even if it's queried or discussed, it's done in a civilised
manner.

J

"J the Trout" wrote in message
...
As a self confessed lurker, I take the view that I will only contribute
when I have someting useful to say - unlike the "usual suspects". I
suspect that they simply like the sound of their own voice (or the on-line
equivalent).

perhaps you are being harsh on yourself. Banter, in and of itself, might
prove useful. Identifying yourself and not being anonymous will give you a
bit of credibility, as well.
Bottom line: Usenet is what it is, and some like it, some do not. No one is
forcing you to post, or even read here.
If you like the format, or even can merely tolerate it, feel free to
participate and perhaps, you might be surprised.
Tom

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
news:rZ7Nh.1102$_S.581@trndny08...

"J the Trout" wrote in message
...
As a self confessed lurker, I take the view that I will only contribute
when I have someting useful to say - unlike the "usual suspects". I
suspect that they simply like the sound of their own voice (or the
on-line equivalent).

perhaps you are being harsh on yourself. Banter, in and of itself, might
prove useful. Identifying yourself and not being anonymous will give you a
bit of credibility, as well.
Bottom line: Usenet is what it is, and some like it, some do not. No one
is forcing you to post, or even read here.
If you like the format, or even can merely tolerate it, feel free to
participate and perhaps, you might be surprised.
Tom

Tom,

"Banter" appears in many other forums, and I am very comfortable with that,
but I feel that it goes over the top on too many occasions here. It does
appear that this thread has brought out a few lurkers, like myself, who, I
guess, would probably agree with me.

J

"Tom Littleton" wrote

Bottom line: Usenet is what it is, and some like it, some do not. No one
is forcing you to post, or even read here.


And many that used to like it, and post valuable and friendly content, no
longer do. It is what it is, just not what it used to be or possibly
'could' be ... that, I believe, has been settled.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
And many that used to like it, and post valuable and friendly content, no
longer do. It is what it is, just not what it used to be or possibly
'could' be ... that, I believe, has been settled.

um, Larry, my memory escapes me here. Were you subscribed to ROFF back when
George Gherke posted
here?? Or, when TBone(now Halfordian Golfer, really
Tim Walker) posted heavily regarding catch and release??
I stand by my description. The only thing changed, that I see, is a more
bitter set of exchanges at times regarding what I would call off-topic
political stuff. And that, to my mind, reflects the tone of debate prevalent
in the nation and the world in the past 5, maybe 10 years.
Tom

"Tom Littleton" wrote

pic
political stuff. And that, to my mind, reflects the tone of debate
prevalent in the nation and the world in the past 5, maybe 10 years.
Tom


No, I'm post Gink era. Certainly the National Nastiness has be reflected
here. But neither "America, Love It or Leave It" or "ROFF, Love it or
leave it" impress me as thoughtful response to basically well meaning
criticism.

You did NOT say the latter, .... but I DID kinda read it that way, .... and
mumbled as I typed, "Common, Tom, anyone that 'keeps notes' on his fly
designs has to be less lame than that."

Thus my post above was a bit "knee jerk" and if there was a way I would have
deleted it soon after first posting and then "thinking" .... I sometimes get
the correct order mixed up. Sorry.